WTC Challenge

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Too all of those that claim that the NIST report is biased.

PROVE IT
----edited for size, don't want another quoting message ----

Many companies will make very important business decisions based on that report.

Why would they do this if it is a biased report?



Because it is baised in their favour? Because it gives the market more stability? Because they are buddies? ......

HR, come on now seriously. Would you take the talibans word for it if they produced a document that said they had no ties to 911? Obviously not because they themself's are involved - the same with Bush. Therefore anything other than a third party assessement is fruitless.

So, any idea's who burned down the garage? Remember, you have no proof...




posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Too all of those that claim that the NIST report is biased.
PROVE IT

Then submit that proof as a comment.

Thousands of engineers, scientists and architects around the world will look at those reports. They will make important design decisions based on that report.

Many companies will make very important business decisions based on that report.

Why would they do this if it is a biased report?



You do realize National Institute of Standards and Technology is dominated by the government? The .gov domain is government domain.
I have to ask as it just does not seem you do?

You truely believe they would be, based on decades of deceptive history, forthright in their submittal of story?

Yet you really don't see their position as biased?

Damn!

Misfit

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Misfit]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Since I have not had the opportunity to read the 10,000 pages contained in the reports I will contact Mr. Stephen Cauffman sometime this week and ask him if he has read all 43 draft reports issued by NIST.

If he has then I could ask him which of the reports would best suit an argument for my beliefs. Assuming there is no cover up he may be able to save me the time that would be wasted by me reading drafts that are not related to my beliefs. If I am informed of a specific draft as mentioned then I will read it fully and add a comment per their criteria to their website.

I will on my own start reading:
Draft report on project 3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel


I have a feeling though that it will be ignored.

BTW anybody have some photo links to the 236 structural steel elements the NIST has in their possession?

As I'm starting to read this report I see that none of the peices recovered were identified as being from building 7 and many of the peices that were examined cannot be identified from it's as-built location.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Fantastic idea Lanotom.

What better first step to debate and/or dispute a report than to actually read it.

Thank you for your efforts and please let us know what you find in the sections that you read. It will greatly assist in the analysis of the subject.

If anyone else could do the same thing with other sections of the report that would be great since I doubt anyone will be reading the whole thing...



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   
StrawMan

www.dictionary.com
2: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted

Just remember that even if it appears there was no controlled demolition, still doesn't shut out the rest of the facts.

Know your political strategies. Watch for them everywhere. Strawman is just one of many.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Never mind my request for the photos of the elements recovered there are some listed within the report starting on page 39.

wtc.nist.gov...

Also seems that every other page is intentionally left blank knocking the 112 page report down like the towers.

Add alot of blank pages and make the report look thick


So of 10,000 pages I'm sure 6,000 could be recycled like the steel from the WTC.

By the way it's suspicious that the pieces that were brought to JFK had to be decontaminated. Decontaminated from what? Thermite perhaps?



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Passer By

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Too all of those that claim that the NIST report is biased.
PROVE IT


Because it is baised in their favour? Because it gives the market more stability? Because they are buddies? ......


So, how is it biased in their favor?

If the NIST report issues recommendations for the design and construction of large buildings based on their findings in the WTC collapse, who would it benefit if those findings are biased?

If municipalities rewrite building codes based on NIST findings, if fire departments reorganize their communications systems, who does it benefit?

Scientists and engineers around the world continuously look at ways that buildings are put together with the intent of improving the cost efficiency and safety of those buildings.

Many of those scientists and engineers will look at the NIST report and its findings with critical eyes.

If this report is a whitewash job, how will this not be apparent to them?



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
You do realize National Institute of Standards and Technology is dominated by the government? The .gov domain is government domain.
I have to ask as it just does not seem you do?

You truely believe they would be, based on decades of deceptive history, forthright in their submittal of story?

Yet you really don't see their position as biased?

Damn!

Misfit

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Misfit]


So what? They are an agency that is charged with establishing safety standards. Ultimately their research and findings have to be scientifically defensible.

All of the data that they have accumulated is publicly available.

The methods that they used to assess and analyze the data are clearly spelled out in the report.

The assumptions that they use are also listed.

This is for all intents, a peer reviewed report. Many, many engineers and scientists will look at the data and the findings and will either agree or disagree. They will comment on the report.

It is not enough to just categorically dismiss the report just because NIST is a government agency. (an independent agency, but the distinction is lost on many here).

You have to show a specific instance where the interpretation of the data is biased.

Where are Chris Bollyn, Jeff Fields, and Stanley Morgan now?

Ok, it is a huge report and it will probably take even the most dedicated researcher a couple of weeks to sift through it. But, I somehow don't think that there will be much in the way of valid criticism put forth.

BTW, I don't care if the posters here attack me for starting this thread. It just proves my point really.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

So what? They are an agency that is charged with establishing safety standards. Ultimately their research and findings have to be scientifically defensible.

Ultimately, they answer to the US governemt, world famous for fabrications.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
This is for all intents, a peer reviewed report. Many, many engineers and scientists will look at the data and the findings and will either agree or disagree. They will comment on the report.


Peergroup is irrelevant, the government publishes the final copy.

The US governemt is also world famous for manipulating bits and pieces into a favorable concoction.

Do you deny these traits?


Originally posted by HowardRoark
BTW, I don't care if the posters here attack me for starting this thread. It just proves my point really.

Uh, what?

Misfit

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Misfit]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
OK I read the report and it is very redundant in textual content and has a total of 13 blank pages.

Most of the content is graphics and insignificant illustrations.

Nowhere in the report did I read about sampling being performed for residue of fuel or other explosives.
Also I did not read anything about testing of two similar steel pieces for density comparison (bending) of pieces that were and weren't exposed to heat or of the properties of said similar pieces.

My opinion is that reading the report was a waste of my time and the investigation could have been better preformed by a pair of high school freshmen.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Like I said before.. we need a -full disclosure formal investigation- taking into account the -big picture-, not just the stuff the government wants us to look at. We need take into consideration all the eyewitness accounts, legitimate dissenting engineering reports, EVERYTHING and I'm sorry to say HR but this report you are flogging does not do this. You get my point. Challenging this particular report is pointless for obvious reasons. Yea, it might help some people build some buildings that are more bomb proof,
but it's not going to answer all the tough important questions and fill the gaping holes concerning what happened on 911. HR, I say this with all due respect, but what you are trying to do in this thread has already been done in a myriad of other threads. The only final step is proof.. PROVE empirically to everyone that 911 happened the way the government said it did. Believe me, if the government can't do it you sure can't.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
what i want to see is someone refute the questions posed in this thread; because they are right

the true hard questions keep getting ignored while the nonimportant ones are being addressed

how do you explain them taking the bombsniffing dogs out the week before? - and lets get some documents that show this as being the case so we can have irrefutable evidence; and if someone finds the documents please post a link here in This thread

and how do you explain what lan found in the report???
he found where it lists a 'decontamination' yet doesnt specify for what reasons
how can you ignore that piece of evidence?

Hell they give us a report "dubunking the bomb theory" chalk full of circumstancial evidence that POINTS DIRECTLY TO A BOMB THEORY LOL

i want it disproved!!! i dont want to live in a nation where this is really happening!
Please Address all questions or else we are stuck with being 'ignorant' as u say
as it stands; the evidence including that in the report points directly to a 'cover-up of something '

please show us were just wasting our time; id love that really truely i would
but i feel like we Arent wasting any time at All


kix

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   



BTW, I don't care if the posters here attack me for starting this thread. It just proves my point really.



No, it doesnt, just as you started this thread when the other about the Hero who reported explosions prior to the Plane colisions on WTC was highjacked...I did not see proof of you over there, why then this new thread...?

I urge you HR to read ALL your posts from the begining because as far as I can remember you were quite nasty and forthcoming in saying that Fire could melt steel and bring down buildings and sisnce that time there have been 2 big fires , one in venezuela other in Madrid and NOT one of them has fallen due to fire ( the Madrid one endured fire for 20 hours and was burned to oblivion but it did not COLAPSE)

Then you cahnged the rules, you said that those fire were "colde" that jet fuel burns much hotter....now this thread asking us to PROVE to you that a government agency is wrong in a report that took months to produce and lost and lots of engenieers, if the WTC was a colapse due to the planes and fire and WE the guys who smell something fish are just plain idiots then why ALL THE HOOPLE, Why All the ingeneers, why all the studies, why thosands and thousands of pages? just like the warren commision a super brick with 100000 of useless facts made to cover the thruth....

Now if you could get one of the beams of the WTC and test it and give US a proof as to why it failed and why All those tons of steel were melted and sent to kingdom come SO FAST....



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Disclaimer No. 3
Pursuant to section 7 of the National Construction Safety Team Act, the NIST Director has determined that certain
evidence received by NIST in the course of this Investigation is “voluntarily provided safety-related information” that is
“not directly related to the building failure being investigated” and that “disclosure of that information would inhibit the
voluntary provision of that type of information” (15 USC 7306c).
In addition, a substantial portion of the evidence collected by NIST in the course of the Investigation has been
provided to NIST under nondisclosure agreements.

(that has the potential to mean alot of things, does it not? It could be interpreted in many ways)

Disclaimer No. 4
NIST takes no position as to whether the design or construction of a WTC building was compliant with any code
since, due to the destruction of the WTC buildings, NIST could not verify the actual (or as-built) construction, the
properties and condition of the materials used, or changes to the original construction made over the life of the
buildings. In addition, NIST could not verify the interpretations of codes used by applicable authorities in determining
compliance when implementing building codes. Where an Investigation report states whether a system was
designed or installed as required by a code provision, NIST has documentary or anecdotal evidence indicating
whether the requirement was met, or NIST has independently conducted tests or analyses indicating whether the
requirement was met.

Use in Legal Proceedings
No part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a structural failure or from an investigation under the
National Construction Safety Team Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter
mentioned in such report (15 USC 281a; as amended by P.L. 107-231).


Some 'offical' report this is.
Also while it is still in draft form, how can it be considered finished?

All investigate staff worked for NIST, except for one; Harold E. Nelson, P.E. Fire Protection Engineering Expert


NIST is a nonregulatory agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Technology Administration. The
purposes of NIST investigations under the National Construction Safety Team Act are to improve the
safety and structural integrity of buildings in the United States, and the focus is on fact finding. NIST
investigative teams are required to assess building performance and emergency response and evacuation
procedures in the wake of any building failure that has resulted in substantial loss of life or that posed
significant potential of substantial loss of life. NIST does not have the statutory authority to make
findings of fault or negligence by individuals or organizations. Further, no part of any report resulting
from a NIST investigation into a building failure or from an investigation under the National Construction
Safety Team Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in
such report (15 USC 281a, as amended by Public Law 107-231).


So this report is not offical. It is not their job to find out who was responsible and blame people, to is their job to 'fact-find' and the main area of their factfinding was not an investiagtion into the possible causes of the collapse, it was a study of the emergency performance of the building.
Also as they freely admit, they failed to inlcude information which they obtained which was "not directly related to the building failure being investigated.”

Also the report is censored by an 'adivsory committee', so despite creating this investigation and a team to do it, the advisor committee sees itself as the final word.


This National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee provided technical advice during the
Investigation and commentary on drafts of the Investigation reports prior to their public release.

The report admits further down

However, the reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed,
and the remains of the towers were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for
this Investigation to begin. As a result, there are some facts that could not be discerned, and thus there are
uncertainties in this accounting.

nist acknowledges fireballs as far down as the lobby, then suggests in its jet fuel section that 70% of the jet fuel remained in the building unburned from the initial fire.
The stangely

"Some of the burning fuel shot up and down the elevator shafts"
down rather than up surely?
followed by

"blowing out doors and walls on other floors all the way down to the basement. Flash
fires in the lobby blew out many of the plate glass windows."

well i would like to know if that is really true?
what kind of stuff is this, that it can blow out plate glass windows???
who what when how???? i dont understand how it gets from the top of the towers to the lobby, does it take the elevator? tehn it suppoesdly ignites and explodes with enough power to shatter the windows?
I have no knowledge on this jet fuel, but it sounds strange to me, am i alone????????????????????????????



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:22 AM
link   
i agree with ya adamj
smells Very Fishy

see what u get for actually reading some of it LOL
the plot thickens


so it says 'doors and walls were blown out All the Way down to the basement' and there were 'flash fires' in the lobby?

LOL that is totally consistant with building demolition from my point of view
***i am not a demolition expert or architecht; but i have taken physics and chemistry for multiple years so im not totally retarded
**

why are they giving us so much to go with? lol
its like they want us to Know something fishy is going on
like they are trying very hard to tell us
without saying it outright

hey do you remember what pages the two comments were said on?
if u dont remember dont worry ill eventually find it



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
why are they giving us so much to go with? lol
its like they want us to Know something fishy is going on
like they are trying very hard to tell us
without saying it outright



Maybe they are being blackmailed into secrecy. And maybe they are trying to get the information out in whatever way they can.

Now, if we could only figure out who is blackmailing the United States.




posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   
There is a section of the report that all should read as it will give you some idea as to the scope of the investigation.
I have edited this to cut down on it's length.


Quoted from NIST NCSTAR 1 (Draft)....

'' The scarcity of physical evidence that is typically available in place for reconstruction of a disaster led to
the following approach:
• Accumulation of copious photographic and video material. This guided the Investigation Team’s efforts to determine the condition of the buildings following the aircraft impact, the evolution of the fires, and the subsequent deterioration of the structure.

• Establishment of the baseline performance of the WTC towers, i.e., estimating the expected performance of the towers under normal design loads and conditions. The baseline performance analysis also helped to estimate the ability of the towers to withstand the unexpected events of September 11, 2001.

• Conduct of four-step simulations of the behavior of each tower on September 11, 2001. Each step stretched the state of the technology and tested the limits of software tools and computer hardware. The four steps were:
1. The aircraft impact into the tower, the resulting distribution of aviation fuel, and the damage to the structure, partitions, thermal insulation materials, and building contents.
2. The evolution of multifloor fires. Draft for Public Comment Executive Summary
NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation xliii
3. The heating and consequent weakening of the structural elements by the fires.
4. The response of the damaged and heated building structure, and the progression of structural component failures leading to the initiation of the collapse of the towers.
The output of these simulations was subject to uncertainties in the as-built condition of the towers, the interior layout and furnishings, the aircraft impact, the internal damage to the towers (especially the thermal insulation for fire protection of the structural steel, which is colloquially referred to as fireproofing), the redistribution of the combustibles, and the response of the building structural components to the heat from the fires. To increase confidence in the simulation results, NIST used the visual evidence, eyewitness accounts from inside and outside the buildings, laboratory tests involving large fires and the heating of structural components, and formal statistical methods to identify influential
parameters and quantify the variability in analysis results.

• Combination of the knowledge gained into probable collapse sequences for each tower, the identification of factors that contributed to the collapses, and a list of factors that could have improved building performance or otherwise mitigated the loss of life.

• Compilation of a list of findings that respond to the first three objectives and a list of recommendations that responds to the fourth objective.''


There is no thinking outside of the box here.

It is based purely on 'aircraft hits tower, 56/102 minutes later tower falls down' therefore, 'what damage must have been done by the planes alone to bring them down?'
They know the initial conditions, they know the end result. The report simulations therefore HAVE to reach the desired outcome, or they are not relevant. So basically the 'scarcity of physical evidence'
helps reach the desired result here.

While I am neither for or against the 'official version' of events, the constrictions of the report are it's potential undoing. Other than the physical evidence (which is scarce by there own admission) they
have only similar evidence as the rest of us...ie, Photo, Video, Eye witness accounts. They have obviously been more extensive in their investigation than the rest of us, but it won't be enough to put a lid on the
'other' theories. It will definitely be interesting to see how they deal with claims of explosives in the building etc. I wonder if their is any evidence to say one way or the other on this.

There are still unanswered questions that are possibly outside the scope of this report. But then they aren't looking for any other possible causes of collapse.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Thank you Irman!.. When you said:

"There are still unanswered questions that are possibly outside the scope of this report. But then they aren't looking for any other possible causes of collapse."


There ARE unanswered questions -outside- this report. *Very* legitimate and deep questions with very deadly implications.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
i agree with ya adamj
smells Very Fishy

see what u get for actually reading some of it LOL
the plot thickens


so it says 'doors and walls were blown out All the Way down to the basement' and there were 'flash fires' in the lobby?

LOL that is totally consistant with building demolition from my point of view
***i am not a demolition expert or architecht; but i have taken physics and chemistry for multiple years so im not totally retarded
**

why are they giving us so much to go with? lol
its like they want us to Know something fishy is going on
like they are trying very hard to tell us
without saying it outright

hey do you remember what pages the two comments were said on?
if u dont remember dont worry ill eventually find it


On the page with the list of reports it is the top one, here is a direct link;
wtc.nist.gov...
page 78 their section 2.4 'jet fuel' (yea right
)

although page 96, their explanantion of jet fuel in WTC2 they do not suggest that anything similar happened in this tower and make no mention of the fact that jet fuel might have gone down or even up, lol, the elevator shaft.

people were mentioning degrees in other threads
The thing i dont understand is how you need a degree to write these fantasy stories? where is the techincal language and explanantion.
It appears they have tried to suggest that fuel which didnt explode in the inital collission, made its way up the elevator shaft then exploded.
NOW, what degree did these people take who wrote this?
Maybe it was a degree in ficitonal writing?

Why say something like that? did they find evidence of explosions above the impact floors? is that the best story they could come up with to explain it?

Ill tell you something else, this was an ivestiagtion into the emergency performance of the building so they must have spoken to this man, www.abovetopsecret.com...
if anyone finds his testimony in this report, let me know!

He said;
"And I contacted NIST previously four times without a response. Finally, this week I asked them before they came up with their conclusion that jet fuel brought down the towers, if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces and didn’t have any answers.



[edit on 27-6-2005 by AdamJ]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   
here is a good letter Roark.
i hear that this guy was fired one week after writing it



Thursday, Nov 11, 2004


The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”.

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. www.boulderweekly.com... 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. wtc.nist.gov... 4. www.voicesofsept11.org... 5. wtc.nist.gov... (pg 11) 6. www.forging.org...

Kevin Ryan

Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join